Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

[ProgKing of the North]

It’s not a terrible idea, but I doubt there will be anybody there that I’d pay money to read the opinions of

 

[GenderCop]

New York magazine drags JBP

Jordan Peterson’s Online Platform Will Shadowban Unpopular Opinions

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian academic whom I think I could absolutely describe as a “Dingus Supreme,” has a new idea for an online platform. This is very important to Peterson because he and his largely alt-right fan base need a safe space online to share controversial opinions and practice free thought. So Peterson is launching Thinkspot, self-described as “a collaborative community where individuals can explore and exchange ideas in a thoughtful and respectful manner. The platform is an intellectual playground for censorship-free discourse.” It will also shadowbanThough it’s not really “shadowbanning”: The term has been co-opted by angry right-wingers who post too much online, which I’ll get into below. users.

The grand idea of Thinkspot, as far as I can tell, is that it’s a place for people who know how to be racist and sexist in a more dog-whistle-y way, not in the more direct way you might see on Twitter — or on Gab, the platform for people who are somehow too racist for Twitter.
____

can't they at least give a pretense of objectivity?

norman mailer, tom wolfe & those guys wrote for new york mag back in the day, now we got “Dingus Supreme"

 

[Steamboat_Bill]

But those are the only people who'll wind up using the damn thing anyway.

I doubt most people are going to want to sign up for an account to hear Peterson cry about Pinocchio and Communism.

 

[Splendid]

You all seem to be missing that this thing looks like it's a fucking payment processor too. This could actually be really great for KF, which has suffered from issues

 

[Fish-Eyed Fool]

KF is about as censored as the Daily Stormer. If Peterson can’t even handle Faith Goldy, what makes you think Null or this site has a chance over there?

 

[Splendid]

It's in his financial interest to do so, it'll make his platform look bad if he drops it. Additionally, I'm willing to be that both Peterson and society will see a difference between a situation where someone on your platform is getting hate but you're not taking them down because there are no ToS violations (which it seems like about half the country actually wants,) and doing an event with a white supremacist.

 

[Lemmingwise]

It's in his financial interest to do so, it'll make his platform look bad if he drops it.

You don't understand that the average person will think that kiwifarms is white supremacist for hosting tarrant video and of they don't, the splc or adl will put them on a hate list to make sure that they do.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

The biggest problem with just about any of these "anti-censorship" platforms is that they invariably tend to attract people who are so odious that they alienate just about everyone else from the platform.

I've seen dozens of these sites come and go over the years, and it's always the same story: they market themselves as a promising, freedom-loving alternative to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter, etc, and literally just a few weeks later they're reduced to nothing more than a repository for scam infomercials, Nazi propaganda, and shock/gore content. By this point, everyone else has left.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I've seen dozens of these sites come and go over the years, and it's always the same story: they market themselves as a promising, freedom-loving alternative to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter, etc, and literally just a few weeks later they're reduced to nothing more than a repository for scam infomercials, Nazi propaganda, and shock/gore content. By this point, everyone else has left.

It's also the easiest way to fight them if any platform looks like they would be a threat. Just pay 20 people or so to nonstop post the most schizo odious stuff and then draw attention to it and get paypal and such to withdraw support.

It's ridiculously cheap to blow potential competitors out of the water, if you think about it.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

The biggest problem with just about any of these "anti-censorship" platforms is that they invariably tend to attract people who are so odious that they alienate just about everyone else from the platform.

I've seen dozens of these sites come and go over the years, and it's always the same story: they market themselves as a promising, freedom-loving alternative to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter, etc, and literally just a few weeks later they're reduced to nothing more than a repository for scam infomercials, Nazi propaganda, and shock/gore content. By this point, everyone else has left.

There's actually some interesting discussion about why this happens out there.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

Jordan Peterson really put on a new coat to get popular with the Americans. When he was living and teaching here in Canada he was never particularly religious. It seemed his books popularity totally went to his head. This and the weird obsession with trans people and the feminists - again, he never talked about this shit before. He used to make appearances on the Agenda with Steve Paikin (Canadian show) years ago and his talking points were about the economy and healthy family relationships and so on. He didn't even seem all that conservative back then either

Jordan in 2008

Jordan Peterson

A paramount social virtue: Psychologist Jordan Peterson on what the credit crisis tells us about trust. Tuesday September 30 2008

www.youtube.com

 

[queerape]

Jordan Peterson really put on a new coat to get popular with the Americans. When he was living and teaching here in Canada he was never particularly religious. It seemed his books popularity totally went to his head. This and the weird obsession with trans people and the feminists - again, he never talked about this shit before. He used to make appearances on the Agenda with Steve Paikin (Canadian show) years ago and his talking points were about the economy and healthy family relationships and so on. He didn't even seem all that conservative back then either

Jordan in 2008

Jordan Peterson

A paramount social virtue: Psychologist Jordan Peterson on what the credit crisis tells us about trust. Tuesday September 30 2008

www.youtube.com

A lot of it speaks to the difference in conservatism by Canadian and American standards. He would have been considered a conservative in Canada, but evangelism and far right populism to the extent of America is still considered fringe in Canadian conservatism. The Overton window in Canada is a lot less forgiving.

 

[Sweetpeaa]

A lot of it speaks to the difference in conservatism by Canadian and American standards. He would have been considered a conservative in Canada, but evangelism and far right populism to the extent of America is still considered fringe in Canadian conservatism. The Overton window in Canada is a lot less forgiving.

I don't know why the evangelism piece is needed to appeal. Canadian Conservatives already support big business and cronyism just like American counter parts. They aren't that different in a fiscal sense.

I'm going to go on a rant here for a minute. Fiscal austerity imposed by conservatives didn't help Canada one bit. We now have more homelessness, crime and economic stagnation than ever before. People are on the brink of insolvency because of the ridiculous costs of housing and living. No Jordan, it's not ''Socialism'' - When Brian Mulroney got in bed with Ronald Reagan in the 1980's it was all down hill from there.

 

[Lemmingwise]

There's actually some interesting discussion about why this happens out there.

There's some interesting thoughts there and at least he's open about his left-wing bias.

This is a bit more of a deep thoughts post, so skip it if you're just here for the drama.


The respectibility cascade seems to ignore a whole host of factors; it attempts to look at these issues as if they were an organic process happening in society, when there are always a multitude of different thinktanks (nice word for propaganda groups) trying to effect different kinds of change.

If you ignore those underlying drivers, not just the goals of what the media executives have, but the people that manage to get their messages in front of media too, then it might look like a contradiction between respectiblity cascade and the disrespectability cascade.

In the end you're trying to ascribe an organic reaction to something that is more of a side-effect to other, more important drivers.

 

[Richard Stabone]

The price seems high to post on a forum. Especially when this just sounds like Reddit.

The problem he'll run into is he'll have to give in on his free-speech promise. People will troll it by typing nigger 50 times into a post and upvoting it to the top. It'll force him to moderate that stuff because it's not good for business to have that on the homepage of your site.

I still contend that the only way this shit works is if it's not a business. It has to be a non-profit. It has to be decentralized. Once your goal is to make money, you won't be able to stick to your principles (see Gab).

 

[Absorbed]

The biggest problem with just about any of these "anti-censorship" platforms is that they invariably tend to attract people who are so odious that they alienate just about everyone else from the platform.

I've seen dozens of these sites come and go over the years, and it's always the same story: they market themselves as a promising, freedom-loving alternative to YouTube/Facebook/Twitter, etc, and literally just a few weeks later they're reduced to nothing more than a repository for scam infomercials, Nazi propaganda, and shock/gore content. By this point, everyone else has left.

It's pretty simple really - ask yourself, what are the reasons to use a platform that advertises itself as an alternative to other, major platform?

-sure, you get some people who just like the free speech principle
-maybe there's someone wanting to try something new
-the vast majority, however, are people who can't use the original platform so they resort to the alternative. And, well, you probably can't use the old platform because you got banned, sometimes unfairly, but often because you broke the rules.

To put it simply, plenty of the guys using new platform are gonna be white nationalists or someone along those lines. Even if the people in first 2 categories don't give too much shit about Nazis using the same platform, will get tired if Jews will not replace us! is what half of the content on the site is and stop using it, leaving just the worst of the worst on the platform.

I don't think there's a good answer or solution to this, it's something that plaques every alternative platform posing as free speech one. Only thing I could think of that could prevent this is offering something new and unique, not just being a simple alternative, which would also draw in people who were happy with the old one, and ensured it's not overrun by shitty content and people.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

There's some interesting thoughts there and at least he's open about his left-wing bias.

This is a bit more of a deep thoughts post, so skip it if you're just here for the drama.


The respectibility cascade seems to ignore a whole host of factors; it attempts to look at these issues as if they were an organic process happening in society, when there are always a multitude of different thinktanks (nice word for propaganda groups) trying to effect different kinds of change.

If you ignore those underlying drivers, not just the goals of what the media executives have, but the people that manage to get their messages in front of media too, then it might look like a contradiction between respectiblity cascade and the disrespectability cascade.

In the end you're trying to ascribe an organic reaction to something that is more of a side-effect to other, more important drivers.

I think that the multitude of different parties trying to push their own narrative is part of the organic process, and really so much background noise when it comes to this sort of thing. Unless you want to suggest the Stonewall rioters had a powerful cabal backing them that made them break the barrier, or that Alex Jones's living meme status is solely the result of some kind of 9D psyops.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think that the multitude of different parties trying to push their own narrative is part of the organic process, and really so much background noise when it comes to this sort of thing. Unless you want to suggest the Stonewall rioters had a powerful cabal backing them that made them break the barrier, or that Alex Jones's living meme status is solely the result of some kind of 9D psyops.

You know what, you make a fair point. I've written two different messages trying to question the logic of what you write and I find the results unsatisfactory in both instances. I should have cast the net wider than just thinktanks, too.

My central criticism remains though. The respectibility cascade and irrespectibility cascade are both attempts at simplifying something too far; it's like people that try to read predict stock results based solely on the graph; it's a result so completely divorced from the things that cause a stock to go up and down, that it's mostly a pointless excercise (there seem to be some niche exceptions that AIs are built to capitalize on, but even that is uncertain).

You bring up alex jones and I would not find it unlikely that he himself intentionally keeps his respectibility under a certain level. Since some of the things he covers challenges some of the absolute most powerful in the world (think bohemian grove / pizzagate), that if he were too respectable, he would not have a long life expectancy.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

You know what, you make a fair point. I've written two different messages trying to question the logic of what you write and I find the results unsatisfactory in both instances. I should have cast the net wider than just thinktanks, too.

My central criticism remains though. The respectibility cascade and irrespectibility cascade are both attempts at simplifying something too far; it's like people that try to read predict stock results based solely on the graph; it's a result so completely divorced from the things that cause a stock to go up and down, that it's mostly a pointless excercise (there seem to be some niche exceptions that AIs are built to capitalize on, but even that is uncertain).

You bring up alex jones and I would not find it unlikely that he himself intentionally keeps his respectibility under a certain level. Since some of the things he covers challenges some of the absolute most powerful in the world (think bohemian grove / pizzagate), that if he were too respectable, he would not have a long life expectancy.

I'd seriously debate whether pizzagate is real or that Bohemian Grove is somehow qualitatively different from so many other general "rich guy clubs" like the Masons or the Rosicrucians or the Bilderbergs, etc. Nixon said in confidence (and was recorded by his own paranoid bugging of the White House) that he'd been to the Grove a few times, and dismissed the whole group as "the faggiest thing I'd (Nixon) ever seen", or that either group has so much influence in the US that they could kill those who besmirch them with absolute carte blanche... but that's for another thread.
I think that respectability/irrespectability cascades are probably a gross oversimplification of a complex process as well; but so is the layman's understanding of most science topics, and those help you to think about things a bit differently.
"Neutral v. Conservative" is the article that was really doing the work in that post, so I'm really curious what people's thoughts on that are.
EDIT: If the mods want to spin this thread of conversation off into it's own discussion, as I'll admit sociological examination of why Peterson's Twitter competitor may blow up in his face is bordering on tangential, I'm cool with that.

 

[Flexo]

Affectionate parody.